<b>Wheat board plebiscite just propaganda</b>
Dual-marketing option for farmers not on the ballot
By Lorne Gunter, edmontonjournal.com
Before I get into the insincerity of the Canadian Wheat Board's (CWB) current plebiscite over its future, let's do a little exercise on the immorality of a government monopoly over Prairie grain in a free country in the first place.
Today's Roman Catholics are a fairly ecumenical lot, reaching out in many ways to other denominations and faiths. But it hasn't always been that way.
Imagine Catholics were still adamant that their church was the surest way - indeed the only way - to paradise. They could even cite writings by prominent theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, "proving" their assertions.
About 40 per cent of the population is Catholic. However, because Catholics are prominent in regions of the country that favour a particular ruling party, over time governments have granted Catholics a monopoly over public worship.
You'd understand immediately why that was wrong. It's a violation of every Canadian's freedom of worship and freedom of assembly.
Even if the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops held a referendum among churchgoers asking them whether they wanted the Catholic monopoly to continue, it wouldn't matter. No one has a right to impose his opinions and practices surrounding faith on any other Canadian, even if the federal government has granted him authority to do so. It's a free country, after all.
It's the same with wheat marketing.
Ottawa has granted the CWB a monopoly over Prairie grain sales since the middle of the Second World War. Successive Liberal governments and many Prairie producers have backed the board because, in their opinion, the board offers producers their best chance of receiving the highest price in the wider world grain market.
The pro-board side has studies, frequently commissioned by the board, "proving" that the CWB gets farmers their best deal possible. But the non-board supporters have studies, too, also done by reputable academics, showing that much of the price advantage gained by collective marketing of grain is eaten up by the bureaucratic costs of running the CWB itself.
The point is, neither side can prove definitively that farmers are better off on their own or under the board. Both sides' arguments remain opinions, even though pro-board farmers are particularly adamant - like religious zealots - that their views are the only ones that matter.
But even if it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the board is producers' best and only defence against rapacious private grain companies, no government legislation or producer plebiscite could give the board and its supporters the moral authority to impose on others their personal opinion of what type of grain marketing is best, just as no legislation or vote could compel another churchgoer to honour a Catholic faith-monopoly.
Single-desk marketing is every bit as selfish - probably even more so - than independent sales by individual producers, too.
Board supporters often insist that all farmers must be lashed to the mast so all will receive the highest price. But there is nothing altruistic in this. The real reason supporters want all farmers under the monopoly is they are convinced collective marketing will give them the highest possible return on their grain.
The board is currently conducting a plebiscite among the 66,000 or so Prairie wheat and barley growers asking them whether they would like to continue the government grain monopoly or move to fully open-market grain sales. Canadian law currently requires everyone growing wheat or barley in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and northeastern B.C. (but not those in Ontario, Quebec or other provinces) to sell their crops only to the CWB.
The monopoly is so restrictive that a farmer may not take his own crop and mill it on his own farm to make pasta without first selling it to the board and then buying it back again at a premium, even though the kernels never left his own bins.
Even if the board's plebiscite were sincere, the idea of an imposed, "single-desk" marketing system is contradictory to the tenets of democracy. Not even a 50-per-centplus-one vote can strip a citizen of his right to manage his own legal business as he sees fit. That might look like democracy, but is in reality a tyranny of the majority.
But the board's current vote is insincere. The CWB knows from its annual survey of producers that a plurality favours neither the existing monopoly nor fully open marketing. Upwards of 45 per cent of farmers want dual marketing - the option to market through the board or independently, as they choose.
The board insists it could never manage dual marketing, so it has not included that option on the ballot. But it could easily achieve stability of supply by making producers sign multi-year agreements to deliver their grain - of their own free will - to the board.
The plebiscite is simply a propaganda exercise designed to produce a result that seems to show 60 per cent, 70 per cent or more of producers in favour of monopoly.
That way, when the federal government introduces legislation this fall to end the monopoly, the board and its supporters can try to influence media coverage and public opinion by cynically insisting the Tories are not respecting the will of farmers.
Dual-marketing option for farmers not on the ballot
By Lorne Gunter, edmontonjournal.com
Before I get into the insincerity of the Canadian Wheat Board's (CWB) current plebiscite over its future, let's do a little exercise on the immorality of a government monopoly over Prairie grain in a free country in the first place.
Today's Roman Catholics are a fairly ecumenical lot, reaching out in many ways to other denominations and faiths. But it hasn't always been that way.
Imagine Catholics were still adamant that their church was the surest way - indeed the only way - to paradise. They could even cite writings by prominent theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, "proving" their assertions.
About 40 per cent of the population is Catholic. However, because Catholics are prominent in regions of the country that favour a particular ruling party, over time governments have granted Catholics a monopoly over public worship.
You'd understand immediately why that was wrong. It's a violation of every Canadian's freedom of worship and freedom of assembly.
Even if the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops held a referendum among churchgoers asking them whether they wanted the Catholic monopoly to continue, it wouldn't matter. No one has a right to impose his opinions and practices surrounding faith on any other Canadian, even if the federal government has granted him authority to do so. It's a free country, after all.
It's the same with wheat marketing.
Ottawa has granted the CWB a monopoly over Prairie grain sales since the middle of the Second World War. Successive Liberal governments and many Prairie producers have backed the board because, in their opinion, the board offers producers their best chance of receiving the highest price in the wider world grain market.
The pro-board side has studies, frequently commissioned by the board, "proving" that the CWB gets farmers their best deal possible. But the non-board supporters have studies, too, also done by reputable academics, showing that much of the price advantage gained by collective marketing of grain is eaten up by the bureaucratic costs of running the CWB itself.
The point is, neither side can prove definitively that farmers are better off on their own or under the board. Both sides' arguments remain opinions, even though pro-board farmers are particularly adamant - like religious zealots - that their views are the only ones that matter.
But even if it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the board is producers' best and only defence against rapacious private grain companies, no government legislation or producer plebiscite could give the board and its supporters the moral authority to impose on others their personal opinion of what type of grain marketing is best, just as no legislation or vote could compel another churchgoer to honour a Catholic faith-monopoly.
Single-desk marketing is every bit as selfish - probably even more so - than independent sales by individual producers, too.
Board supporters often insist that all farmers must be lashed to the mast so all will receive the highest price. But there is nothing altruistic in this. The real reason supporters want all farmers under the monopoly is they are convinced collective marketing will give them the highest possible return on their grain.
The board is currently conducting a plebiscite among the 66,000 or so Prairie wheat and barley growers asking them whether they would like to continue the government grain monopoly or move to fully open-market grain sales. Canadian law currently requires everyone growing wheat or barley in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and northeastern B.C. (but not those in Ontario, Quebec or other provinces) to sell their crops only to the CWB.
The monopoly is so restrictive that a farmer may not take his own crop and mill it on his own farm to make pasta without first selling it to the board and then buying it back again at a premium, even though the kernels never left his own bins.
Even if the board's plebiscite were sincere, the idea of an imposed, "single-desk" marketing system is contradictory to the tenets of democracy. Not even a 50-per-centplus-one vote can strip a citizen of his right to manage his own legal business as he sees fit. That might look like democracy, but is in reality a tyranny of the majority.
But the board's current vote is insincere. The CWB knows from its annual survey of producers that a plurality favours neither the existing monopoly nor fully open marketing. Upwards of 45 per cent of farmers want dual marketing - the option to market through the board or independently, as they choose.
The board insists it could never manage dual marketing, so it has not included that option on the ballot. But it could easily achieve stability of supply by making producers sign multi-year agreements to deliver their grain - of their own free will - to the board.
The plebiscite is simply a propaganda exercise designed to produce a result that seems to show 60 per cent, 70 per cent or more of producers in favour of monopoly.
That way, when the federal government introduces legislation this fall to end the monopoly, the board and its supporters can try to influence media coverage and public opinion by cynically insisting the Tories are not respecting the will of farmers.
Comment